Xavier Rush was red carded for a dangerous tackle on Courtney Lawes as Cardiff Blues went down 23-19 to the Northampton Saints at the Cardiff City Stadium this weekend. The result of the fierce contest effectively eliminated the Blues from the Heineken Cup.

Rush, a former All Black number eight, saw red after he flew out the line to make a crucial momentum stopping tackle on lock Lawes as Saints were threatening after a move from deep. The hit virtually decapitated the England second rower though, who took it well considering the impact.

He got up, played on, but left the field after less than ten minutes. Its since been reported that hes fine and suffered no ill effects. Rush on the other hand, could be in line for a citing following the red card that was shown to him by referee Jerome Garces.

Lawes did dip into the tackle, but the Blues number eight - not known as a dirty player - was responsible for the point of contact, so unfortunately even if he would have hit chest high with Lawes standing upright, the result was ultimately dangerous.

"It was a physically intimidating game but we didn't take a backward step," said Saints coach Jim Mallinder. He said Lawes was okay after the controversial tackle.

"It was a big hit and anyone who takes Courtney around the head needs to be fairly high! Rushie is an experienced player and he has gone into the tackle and taken Lawes's head off. He was probably committed to it," he added.

Despite losing Rush, the Blues could have hung on for the win but errors and a late try cost them as they went down for their first home loss in 13 matches in the tournament.

Do you think it was a harsh call to give a straight red, or did the officials get it right?

@bradders - that wasn't a high tackle, it's was a swinging arm across the face. I doubt very much whether Rush meant it - I expect he just mis-timed it, and Lawes did seem to dip at the last moment - but it was a definite red.

The fact that Courtney was on one of his knees at the point of impact ought to have a bearing on the outcome of any siting. Rush was clearly committed to smashing him at chest height (perfectly legal) and when the player becomes a foot lower what happens can be seen above! OUCH!!

A red card for sure!
It's dangerous play and if he can't tackle properly (he's a pro for screaming out loud! This is what he does and he ought to know and behave better.) he should have let him go. The laws are clear on that point.
No player should be able to give a swing like that to the throat, no matter if it was intentional or not, without getting a red card from the ref. Security is always first!
Well done, ref!

i agree with most of the comments here, Lawes ducked going into the tackle. Its so frustrating as a defender when you put your head down (as rush did) and commit to the tackle only for the attacker to drop into the tackle making it high. Rush still responsible though, yellow IMO

I never normally say this as I believe to be a tough game and enjoy seeing the borderline ilegal awesome tackles!!! But that was most certainly a red!! Without doubt and anyone who thinks otherwise honestly does not have a clue about rugby!!

Also you idiots saying he ducked into the tackle really dont have a clue!! Anyone who has any idea about rugby knows you hit contact in a low body position, its just physics!! A quality player in defence makes his decision on what he can see in front of him!! Pretty lame excuse to say the player ducked if you really think about it!

I think at full speed it looked like a red card offence but in slow mo I think its fair to say Lawes did duck in a bit which made it look worse! The tackle from Tom James on Ashton after Foden offloaded was more deliberately round the neck.

Colombes your point about Lawes' tackles on others is rubbish mate, they were legal but brutal because they were on much smaller men, they didnt even start low and ride up, they just totalled them. Presume you are a France/Montpellier/Bourgoin rugby fan!!

'Anyone else think it was mainly laws fault for dropping about a foot as rush was about to tackle him ?'

Because a 6'8'' it's hard to focus your tackle on a legal area. This comment would be worth something if Lawes was trying to pick the ball up off the floor but a it's not as though there wasn't a huge area to hit. Rush wanted to get an intimidating hit in. IT failed on both parts as Lawes was back up quickly, where as Rush got sent off and essentially lost Cardiff the game.

he didn't have time to duck he had just caught the ball his body position didn't change and his 6 foot 8 so even at a smaller height he will still be 6,2 which is still too high to be tackling like that straight red.

Tackle in the throat... Anyone who's ever been hit by a swinging arm in the throat will understand that it's definitely worth a red card! That's one of the most dangerous thing to do on a rugby pitch, really. People who deny this never played rugby.

without the advantage of replays, the ref really has no choice but to award a red. He did however consult his touch judge to confirm his judgment. Notice how he did not tell the touch judge his decision but asked for his instead. Good reffing that! Not influencing his touch judge's opinion.

however Lawes did slip bringing his neck down to where his chest would have been. So Rush/Cardiff got screwed. $hit happens.

I can see why the ref gave a red - in real time it looks really bad. Its only in slo-mo that you see Lawes slipped down at the critical moment - had he not slipped it would have been a well timed move-halting tackle. I guess that will be taken into account when deciding the length of the ban.

Going slightly off topic I thought the Saints try at the end to win the game was decidedly dodgy. I've only seen it via Sky's ultra-brief highlights - any chance of a longer clip?

'Because a 6'8'' it's hard to focus your tackle on a legal area. This comment would be worth something if Lawes was trying to pick the ball up off the floor but a it's not as though there wasn't a huge area to hit. Rush wanted to get an intimidating hit in. IT failed on both parts as Lawes was back up quickly, where as Rush got sent off and essentially lost Cardiff the game.'

I totally agree that rush was trying to put in an intimidating tackle which is a major part of professional rugby. But as regards my previous comment being 'worth something', I think you missed the point, in my opinion rush had aim the tackle for Laws's chest which is perfectly legal but due to laws slipping/attempted side-step the point of contact change due to no fault of rush who was committed to the tackle at that stage. Yellow at worst.

Red i thought at the time, but seeing the reply from behind, lawes hasn't helped himself by crouching or whatever he is doing so much.
The ref was full of shockers in this game. Great game, but still.. What a &*$"! ref. Didn't honour the fixture whatsoever.

Tad unlucky for Rush as Lawes did seem to dip/slip at the last moment. But the fact is he did take him high, hard and it was dangerous. I would go with a yellow.....although I cannot really fault the ref for red.

Yellow card, and a good talking to. as a rugby player, when you realise there is a 4 on 1 overlap you have 2 decisions, a crunching tackle or an interception ( tommy bowe style) Rush was going for man and ball, at full tilt and courtney lawes dropped his knee. he did not look to go into contact in a low body position, as his body is still upright! if courtney lawes kept running as he wanted to, there would have been a video clip of xavier rush's crunching tackle on 6ft8" courtney lawes! so never a red!

Remember with neck/head tackles the onus is on the tackler to make sure that he does not make a high tackle....there is no allowance for what the tackled player is doing:

"A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even
if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponents neck or
head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A stiff-arm tackle is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiffarm
to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick"

Therefore this is what we call in law a "strict liability" offense. The only question is, did he tackle Lawes above the line of the shoulders. The answer is yes.

Lawes saw Rush coming and didnt fancy getting leveled so ducked and unfortunately took one in the face. On reflection yellow not red but can see why it was given at the time. Mind you Rush didnt complain and left the field rather graciously i thought.

regardless of wether Lawes slipped/stepped/crouched... Rush as the tackler is responsible for the tackle. He has swung an arm high. And as a result of Lawes body position he's caught the Saints player very high. Had he looked to hit with the shoulder first, rather than the arm, or to hit lower (in a more orthodox fashion) there'd be no issue.

Watch Rush's behaviour immediately after the tackle... he doesn't compete for the ball or play on... he looks to put as much distance between himself and the tackle as possible. For me he knows he's committed an offence and is looking instinctively to get away from the officials gaze.

Oh and Colombes... you're nuts. Lawes two terrific hits in the Challenge Cup are perfect examples of legal and hard hits. Had Rush chosen to line Lawes up in similar fashion again, there'd have been no card.

Anyone saying he ducked into it and therefore Rush shouldn't have been sent off needs to reconsider their opinion. Lawes braced himself as he saw the on-rushing player and the crouch came about a tenth of a second before the hit. This obviously had an effect on the point of impact, and Rush wouldn't have had time to adjust his tackle, hence we get such a high shot. It's certainly worthy of a yellow and the red card is not a surprise one bit but I do think that any ban needs to be minimal. It was dangerous but the situation made it so i.e. Rush flying in at full-pelt to be met by a tall player bracing himself for contact.

It has to be remembered that the responsibility lies with the tackler in the engagement and Rush's attempt would have been a monster hit, one of the best of recent memory, if Lawes had taken the tackle stood at his full height and virtually blind-sided after just taking the ball. I don't think it was a malicious hit with intent to take his head off, he merely wished to legally hospitalise him AND stop the try that was most definitely on.

I don't think Rush is a dirty player but that tackle was definitely him trying to get in a "big-hit" and was pretty high for it - if you look at his body position, Rush is relatively upright on impact, so if he was trying to drive forward would have been bent over a bit more. I would say red card was correct.

For everbody saying this isn't a red... What do you have to do on the pitch to get sent out? Shoot the guy with a rocket launcher? That was very, very dangerous. Foul play is foul play. I think there was no intention so should be no ban, but dangerous play nevertheless. This is not the type of stuff you want to see on the turf.

Could one of the posters claiming that Lawes's body position mitigates the high tackle please quote the rule that allows for this?

I understand what you're getting at and I think it does make it unfortunate when your opponent's movements exacerbate your bad tackle, but as far as I'm aware the onus is on the tackler to put the hit in accurately.

Oops. I should have read the comments more thorougly before posting. I see JPM and Hackney Griffin have made my point already...

We're right though. Much as though it's unfortunate for Rush that his planned massive hit was transformed into a high-tackle through not much fault of his own, it's incumbent on him to adjust his own body position.

By the way, cracking break by Foden and nice from an England fan's perspective to see Ashton in tune with him and right on his shoulder.

Ok, some of them are making a constructive effort to explain which in my way cannot be defendable. Rush might not be a dirty player, I might easely conceed that, but on this one, he is all wrong.

On another case, I do not know if RD will show the " nice" kick (on the floor) from Dave Attwood from Gloucester to La Rochelle prop Toderasc (apparently he will not loose his eye...) during this WE Rugby Challenge game.

Not a Red Card, but a citing by ERC commissionar and an apparent apologie from the referee afterwards..... Still I did not see the video yet, so I will be cautious before making any judgement.

Wasnt worthy of a card, same tackle as Umanga used to do in super 14.
Same as Powell on Vermullen on Lions tour.
Look at height of both players during the contact, theyre level, Lowes is about a foot taller than Rush :P

chabal did the same to heaslip in the leinster vs racing game and put him back on his ass this would have been a perfect tackle that would of rattled lawes but since he slipped looks a lot worse but in the refs defense on first viewing thought it was a lot more cynical. yellow not red in my opinion

Unfortunately the ref doesn't have the the luxury of watching the tackle in slow motion, so given the circumstances and the fact that it was a very dangerous and high tackle (which could have seriously injured Lawes) i feel the ref made the right call. I do however agree that it wasn't Rush's intention to hurt Lawes, but the ref has to give what he sees and there is no denying it was a vicious hit.

And i'm sorry but all this talk about dipping into the tackle, he was just getting into position to receive contact, i mean who takes the ball into contact standing up straight????

A very very physical pair of matches. Looked nasty and at full speed and dangerous however I genuinely believe Rush is the kind of player to do his talking through hard running and big defence not dangerous tackles. He was trying to put a big hit in to lift his teammates. Same cannot be said of Hartley as an England fan I was ashamed by him in both matches especially the forearm to Gareth Williams in the game at Franklins Gardens. Finally it was good to see Lawes get up and get on with the game... he looks to have far more qualities as a captain than his teammate Hartley.

Rush's body language immediately after the tackle suggests he knows the severity of what he did. He's up within a split second, frantically getting out of the way for what I assume he thinks is going to be an onslaught of punches!

Has to be a red, whether Lawes ducks or not, there's a swinging arm and no need to go that high to take man and ball.

I wonder if all the shouts for a yellow card would be the same if Lawes' skull wasn't thick enough to take a smash and he ended up badly hurt?

Lawes ducked down - as a few have mentioned - one of his knees was on the ground - if he had stayed uproght - it would have been rib - chest high . . . Lawes didn't deserve to get his head taken off, but it wasn't Rush'd fault Lawes ducked down . . yellow at very worst . . .

@ Anon
"if you think that is a red card then you clearly have never played rugby. Should been let off for a warning at the most."
Damn. I play rugby and I think a straight red is ok. What do we do now?
btw, what sort of warning? Seriously? "Xav, me boy, lower next time. Cheers."

@ Tom
"Yellow at the most, soft red." ??
So, IF there's a card it will be a yellow. But you accept the idea of a pinkish red? And what is a solid red?
"Bad call, typical of French refs."
What country allows beheading as a tackle, since apparently it's a matter of culture?

To those not asking for a red, imagine your son playing and being clothes lined this way. How many of you would say "Fair hit! Man up, sonny, you shouldn't ve ducked and YOU know it"?

Red Red Red card. It is the responsibly of the tackler to tackle safely. Laws didn't duck that much. People that are saying this is a yellow let me run full speed at you, and clothes line you in the neck.

I see most of the comments are made by refs and not players. Yellow at most. Xavier was unlucky, Lawes dipped down made it look worse. Red cards are handed out too easy these days. I'm glad it's not this strict at my club or we'd all get sent off.

Guys I was chatting with my dad last night and it sort of came to my mind all this stuff..... We were talking about rugby and American football etc and the size of players. He was saying how American football (call it AF) they have big pads and helmets and I said well I guess they don't have the sort of rules rugby does, I.e you can more or less do anything to tackle someone in AF..... Then it got me thinking, we all talk about 'back in the day that would have been yellow for lawes because he took so long to get up!!! And a pat for rushe' you know that kinda crap then I thought but back in the day players were a lot smaller, you know great tall second rows built as wide as a pencil etc, whereas nowadays all players are gym junkies.....

My point is, in AF I wonder how many serious injuries would occur with no padding.....then relate than to rugby, the guys are getting bigger so they can do more damage so I wonder if refs have been told to be more harsh. In theory you can argue someone is going to get killed/paralysed one day through a dangerous tackle because everyone is so much bigger.........

Anyway that was my thoughts on stuff.......as for this, lawes went low (still tacklers duty of care though) I think it was nasty but I've seen worse get less......using my theory above I can understand the red, but I generally understand most high tackles to be yellow......

i have to say there are some absolute unreal and biased comments on here! It is clear lawes ducked into the tackle, Rush did not aim high at all, I agree the swinging arm should be penalised but a straight red for that is crazy! The commentators in this game were terrible as was the ref! ex wales international jonathon davies made his point clear on his twitter after the game by saying something along the lines of "do these sky commentators want to shag courtney lawes or something?"
but as for the tackle yellow should have been given, i accept this was a swinging arm but the way most of you are speaking sounds as if your trying to take all contact out of rugby! go and play football if you feel that way!

obvious red. It is the tackler's job to adapt to the ball carrier's position so that he doesn't commit a foul. If you want to tackle at the shoulders, well if the player ducks and you hit him in the neck, it is your fault.

this was a very dangerous play. With the speed and strength of the players a red is warranted. A yellow is a high tackle without to much speed, where the ball carrier is held to the ground. This is a clothesline. Certainly didn't mean it, but red and suspension warranted. Well done ref.

From the look of it Lawes is trying and failing to get round rush, puts in a big step and gets crunched!

But if your of the opinion when being tackled you have to stand tall and not move so you can get smashed, your just retarded! attackers are always trying ot avoid getting hit, so if you put your head down and commit and not work out margins, you deserve what you get. 6.8 ft is about as hard to hit legally as it is for most of you not to think about what your posting

No what I am saying is that if you commit the offense of a high tackle while under control, ie not flying tackle, you bring the player down holding him, it is less grave and therefore warrants only a yellow.

When as in this case the offense is committed in risk aggravating circumstances, ie full speed, little holding of the tackled player, the risk being higher for the player's safety, and this being one of the prime considerations for cards, yellow or red, it warrants an upgrade to red card.

The more I read the thread, the more I get convinced that a lot are just booing the red card for the fun of it. Watching the hit, your first reaction is to hope Lawes hasn't been seriously injured, which for an inch coulda been the case.
That's why it's red! Rush is a good physical/impact player but this has nothing to do with it. This deserves more than the yellow given to the one repeatedly slowing the ball in a ruck for example.

Ironic really, over the two games there was a fair bit of intentionally violent play from Northampton (mostly from Hartley) but Rush gets red for a tackle which, however bad, was not a cynical attempt to foul.

The ref said "dangerous tackle".
A big man totally commits at high speed, then swings his arm across another man's throat?
Yep! The ref was right.
It really doesn't matter about Rush's intention or about the other player changing his body position: it was dangerous. End of.
The ref told Rush to "do one". 100% correct!

Anonymous said...
i have to say there are some absolute unreal and biased comments on here!
There are some very silly comments but sadly they all seem to be real!
What do you mean by biased?? You think they're all written by Northampton fans / England fans / Lawes fans / person-being-tackled fans?? Red card fans???

ex wales international jonathon davies made his point clear on his twitter after the game by saying something along the lines of "do these sky commentators want to shag courtney lawes or something?"
That's odd, doesn't sound like the sort of thing he'd say? Oh look, you've completely made it up! Care to explain why?http://twitter.com/#!/jiff10

It's a yellow i'd say - the tackle is dangerous but not cynical or anything like that. Ultimately, Rush is responsible for the point of contact even though Lawes did fall into the tackle. As I see it, it was not a swinging arm that made contact - it was shoulder on face with Rush's arm coming around to complete what would be a legal tackle if it was lower. As such, it's yellow for a dangerous mistake on Rush's part, not red for serious deliberate foul play.

rush is 6.1 how can you high tackle someone who is 6.8. i play rugby and i dont think its bad at all. seen much worse on the pitch get less. Lawes is a english prick. his knee is on the ground look at it in slow motion. if he didn't drop to his knee he still would of got smashed. Only english people think its bad. he shouldn't even been playing rugby with a name like Courtney. FASSIO!

You guys are watching the same tackle as me right? As in Lawes caught the ball turned and begun to step inside, crouched and caught rush in the process. NEVER a red never never never. Lets cast your minds back to 2009 http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2009/12/three-high-tackles-three-entirely.html
Bowe got closelined JP got nothing, Roberts took Carter to the neck and sholder Carter got a week, And Faafili got a red and got banned. Even tho Carter did SFA JP did exactly what Faafili did and got nothing? Bull-shit
Rush went in for a full on hit Lawes turned and Rush went up and over him, no closeline no swinging arm not worth a red maybe yellow casue it looked so bad, but I really hope he doens't get banned for this!
Also sky sports. Fuck off, we don't want to hear your bias views of crap english rugby...

Same old tripe, it doesn't matter what you use to justify your argument, the only guy that will ever cop it in his situation is the tackler.... All you saying well lawes ducked or whatever, well the French winger many years ago dodged vickery and vickery tripped him..... Whatever the reasons the outcome is still a 'high tackle' or in vickery's case a trip..... It might not be rushes fault but freeze the video exactly when lawes gets hit, where is rushes arm? Round lawes head area, now rushe could be a saint and an angel that would never mean any harm but by letter of the law THAT is a high tackle..... As for the red....meh seemed like a harsh card to me, yellow generally but maybe I can see the reds coming in...

It is the tackler responsibility to control the tackle...Rush definitely had not intention of doing that. That was a swinging arm...Red is deserved....too many people are trying to play like the Islanders these day...it needs to be stopped.

It wasn't a swinging arm ffs. Rush had his arm up and make contact with his shoulder and bicep. People seem to forget rugby is a dynamic game. Rush was unlucky, he wanted to put on a good tackle and it came off wrong.

For those people who keep saying that Lawes is 6ft 8 - who cares. Does that mean that the same tackle on a 5ft 4 player would be OK?! High is high regardless of if the guy is a giant or a dwarf. Red would be deserved if every tackle like this was a red, but they are not.
Maybe the IRB should suggest making all tackles below the waist?!

Red yes - the two had been at each other before then and the intent was there. The fact that Rush got up and ran away from teh incident shows you that 1) He knew he had done bad and was expecting some 2) As most criminals do he ran away from teh scene.

If Rush did that by accident when he look down and saw Lawes he would have seen if he was okay.

If Rush didn't know he was bad then why the hell does an experienced player like Rush pick up the ball

I think showing some concern for the flattened player holds well in the refs eyes, take rupeni caucau's tackle a few weeks ago he was concerned and knew he did wrong, it was plain as day to see how he didn't mean it....accidental or not rushe should have shown a bit more concern and it may have helped his case...

Anytime you cringe at the play when it happens, go with your gut. Red, no doubt. He came way high when he had no need to do so. If he had hit at the waist the whole crowd would have appluaded. Great timing, but incredibly careless...at best, scandalously evil if at all intentional. But no matter how we all feel, it should definately be in the next Try Savers & Rib Breakers!! Ruck on, Rugby Dump!!

Can those posting that this should be a yellow please find an example of a more dangerous high tackle that deserves a red so we can compare. Anything that could potential break someones neck is worthy of a red! No malice, no further necassary.

The tackle was intended to be chest height (perfectly legal), the ball carriers momentum made him lower his body and the tackle arm ended in his face... non intentional...yellow card for failing to pull out of the tackle when ball carrier was dipping down at most...red just shows the refs need to use video technology in this area as well.

Funnily enough to that random trolling anonymous, I don't recall anyone saying powells hit on mccaw (which is a very different incident) was fine or didn't deserve punishment, in fact the number 1 people in line to defend him (welsh fans) all said he was an idiot and deserved punishment, but ofcourse we all know how you SH bunch can cut someones head off, urinate on their corpse, defile their grave and still only get a penalty against you.....you guys don't even have red or yellow cards do you? I mean who needs rules when you are as tough as the SH!!!! hurrayyyy yeah, three cheers!

watching the last 10 seconds of the clip Lawes does stoop down as he is lined up looked like he was attempting a sidestep or something, before lawes stepped rush was going to wrap at shoulder/ upper arm.
looked terrible at first thought certain yellow but watching the replay showed there was no intent, not even a card

Mat once again you prove that there are people that know f'all about the rules....
'no intent therefore not even a card' wtf.... You ever heard of recklessness? Do you even watch the videos on RD.... generally intent has nothing to do with the initial punishment!!! Rush high tackled lawes... End of story, no ifs or buts, arm round neck, high tackle, nasty therefore easily a yellow but to say 'he didn't mean to so he shouldn't get a card is f'in ridiculous'

Rugby's getting soft now. All lawes fault, rush aimed for the chest and only hit him high because lawes dropped his body.
Either refs and the citing comissioners see these things for what they are (nothing more than good tackles becoming accidents) or everyone goes soft and we all go watch those toffs playing football(soccer). This is why im enjoying my league more and more every year.

Yeh except the above 3 comments are irrelevant as they are made by morons with no eye for the game or for the rules..... Yes we as a community all ruled out rush may have not intended the hit to be high so you guys can all go give him a 'well you didn't mean it' blowjob if you want, whilst the rest of us who perhaps have a slight understanding of the rules say well he didn't mean it but fact is he caught him high!!!!

^^ so in your opinion if the ball runner slips and lands on the defenders knee its the defenders fault? In your reasoning the defender would likely get banned for striking with the knee and a high tackle.

The rules don't explicitly state when a red card is required.
Ask ten refs whther this deserved a red and you would get alot of different answers.
Alot of refs definatly wouldn't give red for this, alot would. Many would give yellow, some might not give a card at all.
Personally I disagree completely that it's a clear red.
Fact is it was a textbook hit, but Lawes slipped or tried to duck under it and basically put his head in the way of Rush's shoulder.
Penalise the tackler sure, but realise that he was just doing a tackle, a good one too.
It's not soccer, we don't have to freak out every time someone gets hurt or there's an illegal tackle.
This was completely accidental, not malicious, not even really reckless, since it wasn't really Rush's fault at all.
A penalty would be fine, maybe a yellow if the ref is feeling harsh.
But a straight red for a completely accidnetal high tackle is massive overkill.

Don't be ridiculous if a player slips onto anothers knee no one would expect a penalty but if player gets lifted up and another player tips him it is the tacklers fault..... It's simple you fucking clown open your eyes. I have no love for lawes nor English rugby so this is nothing personal other than the fact you half wits won't open your eyes. Look at 90% of high tackles and you'll see they are generally don't to players ducking, I never said it was a red card I just said it is ALWAYS the tacklers responsibility!!!! Why do you think a recommended tackle area is as the player is side on your head is by his arse you use your shoulder on his hips and you grab his legs (the first tackle generally taught). If you tackle that low and the player slips you still get him low... So if you want to try it that way then rush shouldn't have aimed for the chest!!!!

^^ and you constantly go lowe guys the sive of lawes will just stand there and offload the ball. its common place to hit around the chest so that you can wrap the ball at the same time. Thats the difference between league refs and rugby refs. League refs will in most cases give the tackler some benefit of the doubt whilst rugby ones nowadays go straight for the card.
And about the knee point. You derided it straight away then went back on what you said by saying its ALWAYS the tacklers responsiblity. Accidents happen. This was a committed tackler hitting a person who slipped.

Wow, anon, it would help your argument if you weren't basically just ranting.
Rush committed a penalty, but it wasn't a particularly bad one. He went in for a textbook tackle (and just so you know it's not the 1980s, players tackle around the chest now, there are many reasons I don't feel like explaining to you)
A straight red for something that was completely accidental and basically the fault of Lawes for dropping down into the hit is massive overkill.
European refs are nuts for cards, they jsut pull them out arbitraily. It's the inlfuence of all the soccer in Europe and that game's obsession with cards.

Well Jono I wouldn't need to rant if you could read what I said or at least would take the time to read.... I'm well aware it's not the 1980's and if you take the time to read what I said I stated that is the initial technique of learning to tackle. I'm also afraid you're wrong again, have you never hit someone full on and sat them on their ass? Because I know I have and I didn't have to hitthem higher up, I've also hit them higher and yes I'm aware it works very effectively but the tackler takes full responsibility and I'm also wondering where you read that I said it was bad? For someone who is so quick to label me as ranting I suggest you take some time and slow down to read before you comment.

Oh and btw referees are told how to warrant cards, if they are heavy handed and unfair or unjust then they get 'investigated' so until this guy gets had up for this red I suggest you keep football as far away from rugby as you can, (like the rest of us do!!)

Maybe it was when you called me a fucking clown, it makes it hard to have a rational discussion when someone says that.
Yeah I have put on hits that sat people on their arses. I almost always go for round the chest cuz that's what I was taught to do, but I'm a front rower, so grassing guys with leg tackles is not my job, I'm told to go in and smash blokes back, chest to chest.
But honestly I'm an ametuer, I'm damn near certain you are too, and I don't think what we do in a game is really the same as what goes on at pro level.

I'm assuming you know most tackles are chest to chest, so lets not worry about it.

In regards to the hit and the red card, if you look closely you'll see that a) I wasn't at any point talking to you until you called me a clown b) You basically agreed with everything I said, while abusing me for disagreeing with you - ie it's definatly a penalty, mayeb even a yellow. I simply went on to say I thought red for what ammounts to a mistake caused more by Lawes than Rush is a massive overkill.

In regards to the ref, it's completely subjective what is and isn't regarded as a card, and the guys who asses whther the correct desicion was amde also do so subjectivley. In other words, I don't accept that the ref was right until some offical tells me otherwise.

Tbh Jono if you read above there is someone talking about a player slipping and hitting an opposed knee, then there is your comment then there is my comment with the clown section.....if you refer to it, unless you were the anonymous above you, the clown comment was not directed at you.....

the knee comment is made in direct reference to the "Rush high tackled lawes... End of story, no ifs or buts" comment. players cant be held accountable for accidents unless its there negligance which caused it i.e lifting a player up and turning him over. Rush aimed straight for the chest and only missed that spot due to lawe slipping.

Players duck and dodge all the time only to be high tackled. Effectively that is what happened here, rush high tackled lawes and unless the referee has some sort of investigation into it then none of you have any leg to stand on regarding your issues.

I say that because the referee always gets the final word, you want to argue that the red card is a football influence, I argue that you are influenced by football into arguing with the referee.

You guys serious?
How am I arguing with the ref, I wasn't on the field?
And you just accept every descision a ref makes, regardless? That's just dumb. Refs screw up all the time, it's important they don't keep making the same mistakes.
And there are trends in the game.
For example, currently European refs in particular are pulling out more and more cards for offences that in the past would have warranted only a penalty.
I personally think it's bullshit and a shame. Less cards the better. Disagree with me sure, but have a reason, not just, "what the ref says goes."

Oh really Jono. I didn't say refs are always right, but what the ref says does go.....I've yet to point out a referees decision is a little iffy and have him congratulate me and change it..... However as this 'European football community' slagging thing is going on, how many football refs get argued with?!!?

The fact is the game is changing, hits like this are caught more often and players are becoming bigger and stronger and faster so I strongly believe the irb are telling refs to be strict on this stuff to avoid serious injuries!!!

Like I said before it matters not what we all argue, because 'the refs decision is final'